Lean vs Cheap: The Decline of Appliance Quality

Do you remember the Maytag Man, that 50-something gent in the blue uniform? The ads portrayed him as lonely, a result of the quality of Maytag appliances and few service calls. I fear the old mascot would not be able to keep up with the requirements of the new world of appliance quality, and his replacement a year ago with a younger, more energetic model is perhaps a subconscious indicator of the job’s new requirements.

Even the slogan changed, from ‘Built strong to last long’, to ‘What’s inside matters’.

Hmm. I reflect on these changes as I settle up the bill on the second breakdown of our 2012 Maytag refrigerator. The first, a few months ago, was to replace a faulty drain hose that led to ice building up in the bottom of the freezer – cost $234. The new hose was a redesign to prevent this from happening again in the future. The second problem led to a complete breakdown, as the control panel circuit board faulted out. This time the fridge was down over a week while we waited for parts – cost $316.

Our initial thoughts were that we must have bought a lemon, that low-percentage product that somehow made it through the quality control process and ended up in our kitchen. How else could we end up with $550 in repairs on a 2 ½ year-old product that cost $2,000? As I spoke to various service technicians, however, and did some broader research, the picture that emerges is very different.

Service technicians appear shocked that we didn’t buy the extended warranties on our appliances (by the way, we have had two service calls on our dishwasher as well; knock on wood for the stove). There is a proliferation of websites and forums, giving people a voice on poor appliance quality or helping them diagnose or fix the appliances themselves (e.g. http://www.appliancejunk.com). LG is simplifying their repair service, by offering a ‘One-Price’ flat-rate program, where consumers know ahead of time that any service call will only be, say, $110, regardless of the cost of parts. In one particularly troubling example, a technician told a story of touring a manufacturing plant for refrigerators as part of his training with that company, and seeing product being discarded at the end of the assembly line. When he asked, the company representative indicated that if a fridge fails the quality check, it isn’t worth fixing, so they recycle it.

So how did we get here? I like to say that the world is flat – globalization has happened. What that really means is that your organization is competing with other firms from around the world, and your customers have access to those same companies. That increased competition over the last 25 years has forced every industry through significant levels of change; firms who didn’t change perished. This is nothing new.

Whirlpool (parent company of Maytag) launched a Lean campaign back in the 1990s as part of their strategy to combat increased competition from European and Asian manufacturers. Their progress through that initiative is well documented, highlighting the good (waste reduction), bad (mass layoffs) and ugly (plant closures). Authors such as Kevin Meyer and others have illustrated the disconnect between true ‘Lean’ and Whirlpool’s cost-cutting mandate. For me, lean has always been about value, and not the cheapening of products or services (See Lean and the Duct Tape Conundrum). If value is about providing what the customer really wants and needs, then the difference between Whirlpool’s initiative and lean couldn’t be more stark.

This is an industry ripe for disruption. With declining quality across the board (when asked, the technicians indicated that Bosch and Miele out of Germany were better than most, and the Koreans tried hard to at least make repairs reasonable), someone is going to figure this out. I would happily pay a bit more for a product of quality from days gone by (remember those fridges that lasted 20 years? You may still have one in the basement, cottage or garage. Hang on to it!), or for effective and supportive after-sales service (think of Bose, Lexus and others). Manufacturers need to treat the design and engineering process as in other industries; provoke early failure in prototypes and virtual models and solve that issue before launching volume production. And, while offshoring is a fact of life, without support from corporate quality, supplier development and engineering, any offshore supplier will struggle, leading to some of those quality misses we witness here at home.

Most importantly, while the organization deals with poor quality, why not build in an extended warranty? An effective service response and resolution will in fact build customer loyalty and enthusiasm, despite the fact that the situation started with a break down.

Lean is about value, and your customers determine what value really is. Appliances may be about lifestyle to some degree, but they really are supposed to just operate well and stay in the background. Focus on quality, simplicity and duration, and this dialogue moves off the table.

What Bugs Me About Target

On January 15, Target announced they were pulling out of Canada, closing all 133 stores and terminating over 17,000 employees. While the news caught everyone outside the U.S.-based leadership team off guard, it should not have been a surprise. Target in Canada never really caught on, and there are a number of reasons for it.

Supply Chain Management –

Target and their suppliers seemed to struggle with the concept of a border, even one that is part of a free-trade agreement. Stock outs, especially on promotional merchandise were common and well documented. How frustrating for consumers to travel to a store specifically for a ‘sale’ product and find an empty shelf and an employee with that ‘I don’t know’ helpless shrug.

Store Concept –

Zellers closed their doors for a reason, ultimately as a result of not being able to compete with the 800-lb retail gorilla from Arkansas. Zellers could not differentiate itself sufficiently from Wal-Mart, and primarily went head-to-head on cost. Not a battle they were going to win, especially when they layer on mediocre store layouts in less than ideal locations.

Target’s entry strategy into Canada? Let’s buy some of those defunct Zellers stores, tweak the paint and get going! In the end, Target was another low-cost retailer with no meaningful differentiation trying to compete with Wal-Mart. Fast forward to 2015, and the loss and write-offs are north of $5 Billion.

I don’t begrudge new-CEO Brian Cornell for closing Target in Canada. Given the situation, and their apparent lack of understanding of their customers in Canada, it is the right move for the broader corporation, as evidenced by the applause from the investment community after the announcement.

What bugs me is that it didn’t have to be this way.

Canadian consumers were excited about Target coming to Canada, having experienced the retailer’s low-priced chic, fresh layouts and good service south of the border. In fact, Canadians had been trained what to expect and were enthusiastic about a new player on the landscape. How nice to have customers waiting for your arrival!

There are a couple of concepts I use when discussing Operations Strategy with students and executive teams that are applicable here. The first is, customer enthusiasm and loyalty in a service only exist when there isn’t something better next door. That is, switching costs in many services are essentially zero. In this case, Canadians familiar with Target in the U.S. flocked to stores when they first opened, and were immediately disappointed. This isn’t what we expected. As a result, we may shop there a few times, but very quickly, we will return to previous shopping habits.

Target execs made a number of comments about this, essentially blaming consumer behavior in Canada as a contributor to their failure, which is an inappropriate perspective. The superstore concept works in Canada, as demonstrated very successfully by Wal-Mart. Canadians weren’t fickle – they just wanted what they experienced with Target in America.

Which leads me to my second key concept – Who is your customer, and what do they want? If the executive team in Minneapolis had considered those questions, the outcome may have been very different. In this case, consumers were cost-conscious shoppers who wanted something different than Wal-Mart (and for that matter, Zellers). Despite their continued success, we all know there is a reasonable percentage of the population who shop at Wal-Mart on a regular basis, but would appreciate a retailer with a bit better service and a more upbeat environment.

Those were Target’s customers, and what they wanted was what Target had given them on previous cross-border shopping trips. The launch strategy needed to take those thoughts into consideration. I appreciate that retail competition is fierce, regardless of the market, and Canadian Tire, Loblaw and others are going to push back on any emerging threat. Target, however, needed to strike a balance between gaining some level of critical mass, and launching well in each location. The Zellers strategy was absurd.

Answering the What do they want? question and implementing the Canadian strategy isn’t easy, but here are a few thoughts while I am Monday-morning quarterbacking:

• Location, location…you get it – Start with fewer stores, but perhaps a regional or large center strategy, and expand in a controlled manner. The stores themselves need to appeal to all 5 senses.

• Establish the Supply Chain – Military strategists know their troops are nothing without food, supplies, weapons and shelter. While most Canadians recognize that prices in Canada will always be marginally higher for many products than in the U.S., the delta here was too large. Work with suppliers to establish distribution, warehouses and inventory to effectively manage Target-esque goods at the right price. And no empty shelves.

• Hire early, and train, train, train – Employees in this environment can be a key differentiator with Wal-Mart. Hire for personality, attitude and problem-solving, and let them get at it.

• You can buy that on-line – No on-line retail operations in Canada? We have the Internet here too. Critical, especially in the controlled launch strategy above for Target’s physical operations.

As consumers, we will get over this. The 17,000 employees, while treated reasonably well with 4 months severance, are left in the lurch, and many of these people left other jobs to work for Target. Creditors, landlords, Canadian suppliers and others are also waiting in line as the corporation proceeds through CCAA. Many of these partners will get pennies on the dollar for their investment in Target’s Canadian fiasco.

Target’s Canadian strategy lacked a customer perspective, some simple considerations that seemed to elude leadership. Everything about this situation has evolved so quickly over the past three years, where all that remains will be a case study in what not to do, and multiple stakeholders footing the bill for a half-hearted northern strategy.

Lean and the Duct Tape Conundrum

Red Green wouldn’t be thrilled. The duct tape I had just picked up was fraying as I peeled it off the roll, separating from one sturdy strip into several skinny strips with threads hanging off the edges, making it far less effective. The ‘handyman’s secret weapon’ no longer.

Duct tape is just one of the many products out there that has been de-valued through the “Wal-Mart effect” of constant cost pressures on suppliers. Bill Marquard does a very good job documenting the price reduction of duct tape in his book, Wal-Smart (McGraw-Hill, 2007), from prices above $5 per roll to where it currently sits between $2 and $3. Some of those reductions were a result of productivity increases on the production line – shorter cycle times, less waste, etc. – but some is also the result of removing material cost – cheaper adhesive, less or thinner structural fabric. As a result, this less expensive product is also less effective.

Duct tape isn’t alone. Krazy Glue seems less crazy – the last several repairs I have tried didn’t stick as advertised. Internet forums suggest there is a lower concentration of cyanoacrylate (the functional ingredient in super glue) now compared to historical levels. Light bulbs don’t last as long, or have different colour temperatures (the ‘colour’ or whiteness of the light) in the same box. Whether it is the Wal-Mart effect or the effect of years of offshoring these products, I think as consumers we are losing in this continual battle to reduce cost. Some refer to this as leaning out the supply chain, but this isn’t a Lean approach to manufacturing – it is just cheap.

People mistake Lean for cost reduction all the time. Tell your people you are launching a lean initiative next week, and people will start dusting off their resume, fearing layoffs and the whole ‘do more with less’ approach. Lean will involve some cost reductions, but they are what I call ‘good cost reductions’ (like the difference between good and bad cholesterol). Good cost reductions are those that reduce complexity or waste within your system; bad cost reductions affect performance, morale or services that your customers have come to rely on. Good cost reductions eliminate customer anxiety and bad decision risk from having too many products to choose from, or reducing complexity in a process so an employee can carry it out with less risk of mistakes. Bad cost reductions are arbitrary and destroy employee enthusiasm and the culture around the shop you worked so hard to create.

Lean is a necessary skill in any company, and when understood and applied properly, it can be very powerful. I call lean the ‘enabler’, giving a firm the resources it needs to pursue an innovative strategy or execute a key project. When we apply lean, we focus on value – what does the customer really want? We eliminate complexity, waste and redundancy, shutting down processes, products or services that no longer add value or confuse customers.

In 2011, Maple Leaf announced it would be eliminating a number of their recipes for wieners from their portfolio – they had 78 at the time! What is more, they had 50 different sizes of hot dogs. 5-0! How many different sizes of hot dogs do you really need? The worst part was their production line was often shut down for over an hour while they switched between recipes. There is the waste. Kudos to Maple Leaf leadership for doing something about it. General Motors was forced to go through some similar efforts 5 years ago as part of their funding package from the U.S. government. They had 11 different car and truck brands at the time, with distinct tooling, engineering, sales, distribution, etc. Put a Chevy pick-up next to a GMC pick-up and most of us can’t tell the difference, yet they have distinct tooling, distribution, and other costs running into the millions of dollars.

How do you get started with lean? Start by looking at the processes your employees are engaged in. What reports do they issue that no one reads? How many meetings are people scheduled to attend every week? More than 10? Yikes! What processes are necessary but are not really done well? Look also at your product and service offerings. Like Maple Leaf or GM, do you have many very similar products on the menu that confuse customers and consume resources, or are they all distinct? Ask: Where are we wasting our time? My friend Darren tells his team to ask, “Would the customer be willing to pay for that?”

Lean is about focusing on reducing the costs, waste and complexity in our system that takes away from our ability to properly serve the customer. Do that well, and we create an agile, value-focused organization. Do it poorly, and we just have duct tape that doesn’t stick.

First published in 2013 on YouInc; re-released in 2015 on QSBInsight.

Cultivating Innovation

One of the most common questions I hear from executives and leaders is how they can get their teams to be more innovative. In most cases, the root cause is a perception that they are too busy to be creative. I will tackle that issue in a future post, but for now, let’s look at creating an innovative culture. We acknowledge, of course, this is a long-term process, but first steps are important.

Acknowledge the situation – “Hi, my name is Barry Cross and I have a problem.” Maybe not that kind of problem, but the approach is the same. This is where we talk to the team: We are doing a great job with today’s customers, but what about tomorrow’s? Tailor the message to suit your business, your market, and most importantly, your vision of where you need to go. Bottom line – ask for their help in driving Next in your business.

Shake up the routine – Being innovative doesn’t require a massive R&D budget, but it will require a culture shift. Start by changing your own behavior. Re-purpose your Friday management meeting with a new agenda, and better still, a new location and time slot. De-emphasize e-mail and other busy work, so people can complete important tasks more quickly, thus freeing up time to think about Next. Talk the cool ideas that emerge around the water cooler and on the company’s internal website.

Set a stretch target – Every once in a while, leaders need to be able to ask for something exceptional. Set a seemingly out of reach goal for 2015, something people really have to work at. This could be organizational, strategic or even philanthropic. Enable the team, empower them and then get out of the way. When they nail it, celebrate!

We spend so much time on conditioning people’s behavior right from childhood that we want things a certain way – rubrics, guidelines, expectations, agendas, goals – that people forget how to be creative. We start here by shifting the culture and breaking some of the paradigms that govern our day-to-day behavior, and the team will start to look beyond the veil of efficiency. This is a long-term process, but any step is a step forward.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑